story | Ren Jie, Contributing Reporter
photo | Yang Xuerui
The Scientific Inquiry (SI) course, a part of the Common Curriculum, has seen significant changes over the past few years. Previously, the wide range of scientific topics was scrapped in favor of a more focused investigation of evolution and cosmology. This year, freshmen focused exclusively on the topic of evolution, reading the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. Students have expressed mixed opinions about the course thus far; some have concerns about its rigor and lack of clarity, but others view the course as enjoyable and intellectually stimulating.
Taavishi Jindel ā20 thought that the goals of SI were āinteresting and nobleā. However, she felt that there were not enough āactual science activitiesā. Quoting an example of a skull classification activity, where students were assigned to do various pre-determined types of measurements on a set of skulls, Jindel felt that āwe werenāt taking extremely precise measurementsā, and that the descriptors used for the skulls were vague.
She hopes that there can be opportunities to do āactual experiments, with proper controlled variables.ā
Similarly, Yogesh Tulsi ā20 felt that while his seminar leader was excellent, the course was rather unfocused. Referring to a more recent activity where students had to find a message by decoding a DNA sequence, Tulsi thought that āwe were [not] learning for the sake of learning, but for the activityā, and that āthe activity overpowered the learning points.ā As such, he felt that āevolution really interests me, but SI makes me disinterested.ā
The structure of SI has changed significantly over the past few years, but there are still similarities in studentsā sentiments about the course. Previously, controversies surrounding a particular SI lecture in the previous year have been covered in these pages. Reflecting on his experience with the course last year, Joshua Phua ā19, said that with the emphasis on evolution and cosmology, the course ātried to do a lot of things in a short period of timeā, making the course challenging for students who may not have had prior knowledge of various concepts. However, a more pertinent problem for him was a ālack of clear vision or objectiveā, which meant that the learning objectives were not clearly communicated.
Nonetheless, not all students have negative opinions about SI. In fact, many enjoyed a recent computer simulation activity. The activity involved playing a game-like simulation to understand genetic algorithms. A competitive element was included, in which the student with the highest average score in the simulation would win a Raspberry Pi computer or a Starbucks voucher. Kshitij Bansal ā20, who obtained the 2nd highest score in his cohort, enjoyed how āopen-endedā the activity was. āWe had the freedom to do anything, just as long as you get there,ā he said. Ā
Bansal also commented on an activity where students visited the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum in their own time, to answer some guiding questions. He found the process slightly stifling, but would want to visit the museum again to look at the things he missed. Bansal also said that he enjoyed the course as a whole. āThe content weāre covering is pretty relevant. Learning about genomes, the philosophy of science, and the thought process of scientists is really interesting,ā he said.
Regarding studentsā concerns, Associate Professor of Science Neil Clarke, the coordinator of this yearās SI course, acknowledged that a common response given in the mid-semester surveys was that the course āwasnāt real scienceā. However, Dr. Clarke felt that the ādry-lab activitiesā done in seminars, such as identifying the difference between human and chimpanzee karyotypes, was āactually doing scienceāitās discovering something, asking a question, and thinking about how you can test that.ā He also acknowledged that a better option would be to have students do activities in laboratories, but noted that there are practical difficulties in doing so, especially given the size of cohorts.
Commenting on the disparity between the opinions of students and faculty about whether the course was āscientificā enough, Dr. Clarke identified a cause of these differing opinions to be the way science is taught in prior curricula. āScience is often taught as a body of knowledge, but [what is taught] is actually a body of knowledge that science discovered.ā Dr. Clarke thus acknowledged that there is a need to convey the definition of science to students more effectively.
Looking forward, Dr. Clarke said that as a result of the Common Curriculum review last year, SI will be maintained for the next few years. āThe course will stabilize a bit, and will continue to be centered around a single topic,ā he said. However, several changes that are being considered include a greater emphasis on scientific philosophy (possibly by including a book about the subject) and condensing the content from the first six weeks of the course into the first few weeks. It seems like the course will carry on evolving.
Yale-NUS has 4 science teaching labs on campus, which means that at least 8 sections can have laboratory exercises PER DAY. So, if we properly utilize our resources (students can come in 9:00-12:00 and 13:00-16:00) we can accommodate 40 sections of up to 15 students each, and that’s not even counting computer science, electronics and other “dry” labs or scientific field trips into one of the most biodiverse corners on Earth! Therefore, the College has the physical capacity to offer lab-based scence courses for at least 750 students. Every. Single. Week. Currently we’re not even at 10% of that…
Absolutely first rate and coteer-botpompd, gentlemen!